Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/FAQ

Community de-adminship as a process is described at Wikipedia:Guide to Community de-adminship

This FAQ has been created by some of the editors who support the proposal, as an additional guide to understanding WP:CDA, and the 2010 RfC that seeks its implementation.

1. Q: Why is this the form of Administrator Recall we are taking to the community, out of the many proposals that have been put forth?

A: There was an in-depth Request for Comment (RfC) conducted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall, where fourteen suggestions were examined carefully, and CDA was the only proposal that received more support than opposition (although it should be noted that all proposals received criticism). The present proposal was developed by further improving that version.

2. Q: How long has the development of this proposal taken?

A: It has been active since first discussed at WikiProject Administrator in October 2009. The RfC conducted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall was concluded the following month, and discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC concluded in January 2010, with additional polling in January and February.

3. Q: I have heard these discussions described as unduly complex and as "Too long; didn't read". Why?

A: Everyone would love to make these processes more straightforward, and the archive of the latter discussion is one of the longer pages on Wikipedia. (The current page is largely a summary). Please bear in mind that in a community full of intelligent editors with creative ideas, it is likely that most discussions of this nature will become complex. The question being asked here is a fairly straightforward one, but it involves serious discussion about how a community like Wikipedia can operate. Reading the archive all the way through would be a time consuming and for most, probably a fairly tedious business, but the finished proposal is reasonably succinct.

4. Q: Is there a simple summary available of these debates?

A: Yes - it's here.

5. Q: Who created the original idea?

A: Whilst the discussions came up with quite a few detailed changes, the original proposal was written by Uncle G (talk · contribs) (an administrator).

6. Q: Are there any alternative forms of Administrator recall available now?

A: Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall, and using a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct (WP:RFC/USER) to gather evidence of abuse or poor judgement by an administrator, and to get a consensus as to whether the community supports the administrator or not. The former is optional and there is no method of enforcing it. The latter reflects the same principles as this proposal, but is not focused exclusively on the single question of whether to remove the sysop right.

7. Q: Is CDA is trying to resolve any existing problems?

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Five Problems with a Single Solution

A:

• The community appoints Administrators through the WP:RfA process. Many feel the community should also be able to recall Administrators that have lost its trust.

• Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) can and do de-sysop Administrators on a regular basis. However, the procedures are often lengthy and cumbersome, and ArbCom seems to some people less willing to take on cases where there is a perceived loss of community trust, rather than cases that show a specific "bright line" abuse of Administrator tools.

• CDA differs from User RfC in having a clear outcome and being focused on only one question: the removal or retention of administrative rights.

• CDA could act as a beneficial deterrent. Its existence, rather than the specific use of it, may make Administrators more accountable for their actions.

• It has been suggested that CDA will reduce the cynicism some editors have towards Administrators holding a perceived "job for life", and thus improve morale at Wikipedia.

• CDA may also have a beneficial impact on the process of selecting new administrators at RfA, as the approval at RfA would potentially be reversible, and editors might feel less need to oppose for minor reasons. Similarly, CDA could make the RfA process more attractive to good candidates who find the current system discouraging.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This section was written by an editor who no longer supports CDA. Please address any issues with it on the Talk page.

---

8. Q. What have been the criticisms of CDA as an idea (ie the non-technical criticisms)?

A: There was initial debate about the idea of CDA (archived here) and about the percentages of !votes required to de-sysop (archived here). Other criticisms that have occurred are:

• WP:RFC/USER (where arbitrators can juge an admin under the terms of "Request for Comment") is seen as something that isn't broken, so shouldn't be fixed.

• There is a concern that votes can be too-easily 'gamed', ie supporters or oponents of the CDA can manipulate consensus by unfairly creating extra votes.

• There is a belief that community can at times act like a "mob", and the present WP:RFC/USER process better guards against this.

• Wikipedia needs Administrators who are willing to make difficult decisions at times, and 'righteous' admin can theoretically be as unpopular as admin with poor attitudes. Administrators (like editors) don't have to break any rules to be unpopular.

• Too many frivolous CDA's could be a serious burden on Wikipedia's resources.

• The CDA process could significantly increase the Bureaucrats' workload.

• Failure of a CDA could effectively vindicate the admin (who have clearly transgressed in a number of matters), and protect him to a certain degree from further CDA's.

• The initial nominators will have a high profile, and to a varying degree the participants could too. Will the failure of a CDA (or even its success) effect their participants subsequent standing on Wikipedia? It can be argued that the existing WP:RFC/USER process (using arbitrators) limits this element, as the 'arbs' were in essence created for this kind of job.

• Concern has been express that no form of CDA could effectively deal with negative canvasssing. Disruption could theoretically be caused before a CDA officially starts (prejudicing any pre-CDA resolution), and admin can easily be in contact with each other.

• Administrators are editors too, and "mob rule" from admin behaving badly (running to support, being vindictive etc) could make the Bureacrats job impossible. Subsequent problems from all the 'drama' could outlast the CDA process whatever the result.

• CDA is indirect, and does not fully address many of the concerns with the Wikipedia Administrator process that have raised over the years. Examples of those concerns are; the "job for life" aspect (ie changing adminship to something more term-based perhaps) and the need for a 'review' process for existing admin. CDA can be seen as a bandage over a structural problem, which should be dealt with instead of (or before) implementing any form of Admin Recall.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

9. Q: Are there any safeguards in place to prevent abuse of good administrators by angry users?

A:

• Editors are explicitly warned in the proposed policy, before making a nomination, that they, too, will be the subjects of intense scrutiny.
• Nominations can only be made "after substantial community discussion at a suitable venue, such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User, has failed to produce a resolution, and there must be documentation of these prior attempts." This requirement largely precludes starting a nomination in anger and haste.
• There must be ten nominating editors in a seven day period. These editors must not be under any sanctions, and must have accounts more than three months old and with no fewer than 500 edits.
• There is a carefully designed process after the nomination, to make sure that there are sufficiently many !votes to support any action taken, with adequate discussion. Bureaucrats will determine consensus, and disqualify disruptive edits.

10. Q: Why has the percentage of !votes to determine consensus been such an issue?

A: In simple terms, some believed that a much higher or lower percentage of support should be required to de-sysop, (e.g. "we don't know whether 70% is a realistic number and it may not be possible to get a 70% majority to desysop anyone"), or that no percentages should be mentioned at all. Some editors see de-sysopping as a "mirror" of RfA, but others do not. We have taken special care to poll the community on this matter, and to reflect that feedback in the final proposal.

11. Q: Can I see examples of cases where CDA would have been useful in the past?

A: Throughout the process of creating this RfC, we have attempted to avoid name-calling and specific examples on the grounds that this would most likely result in abusive sidetracks. We strongly suggest that this protocol be continued during the RfC. If you are unaware of any such instances, you may learn a little more if you examine the recent discussions during the elections for Arbcom. (See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements and click through to the "Questions for the candidate" at the end of the individual statements.)

12. Q: What happens if CDA fails to work properly?

A: Wikipedia is still in its political infancy, and whilst there is no formal constitution to guide us, it is likely that;

1. If the Bureaucrats' consensus was that it should be suspended; or

2. ArbCom voted to suspend it; or

3. Jimmy Wales decided to suspend it;

suspension of the CDA process would occur.

13. Q: If enacted, how can the process be amended?

A: In the usual way—by seeking consensus for change. The proposal also requires that the process undergo a formal review after one year or five nominations, whichever comes first.